2 On Dec 30, 07:37 am, KISS wrote:

AA must have a dog in this show, like stock or a good job.
Yup the fix is in and if it isn’t, you got some real dead-heads in charge.
I wonder, where we live, if we could hear the bang…..

4 On Dec 30, 09:19 am, Patrick McGee wrote:

What public safety issues are associated with
LNG?

No other energy infrastructure brings together the
four major risk factors that are associated with LNG
marine receiving facilities: 1) high energy density,
2) very large inventories, 3) unusual release
dynamics associated with extreme cryogenic
temperatures, and 4) very large potential impact
zones. Studies that examine LNG releases caused
only by spills should be carefully questioned, since
it is more likely that a major high rate release will
not be simply a spill.
The danger to those caught within the potential
impact zones include: asphyxiation due to lack of
oxygen, exposure to severe cryogenic temperatures,
burn from severe heat/thermal radiation, and
damage associated with high pressure blast waves
and associated flying debris.
The range of risks that can generate these extensive
impact zones can come from operational accidents,
intentional acts such as sabotage, or natural events.
Though the consequences of an LNG accident have
been demonstrated in the LNG disasters that
occurred in Cleveland in 1944 and in Algeria in
2004, neither of those events represented the scale
of destruction that could occur given the enormous
amounts of LNG stored at a typical marine
receiving terminal.
Extrapolating from the limited experience we have
in the U.S. with LNG would be foolhardy even if
the world had not changed on 9-11. LNG terminal
siting, planning, and operation must occur with the
full realization that such facilities represent an
attractive target for terrorist groups. Onshore LNG
receiving facilities cannot realistically be protected.

6 On Dec 30, 09:57 am, Patrick McGee wrote:

Did you know that when LNG hits the surrounding environment outside its artificially maintained -260 degree environment it is instantly boiling because everything around it is plus 260 degrees and immediately starts vaporizing akin somewhat to a nuclear fision reaction(1+1=2+2=4+4=8+8=16+16 and so on) and when it reaches its ignition mix zone, ignites and burns so hot there is no known firefighting apparatus that can deal with it?

So, assuming your vision of a terrorist is not some illiterate camel jockey, a small group of well trained, zealot mariners could cause a world of hurt to a community along an LNG tanker’s path if commandeered by such.

Think it could never happen?

Scarey thing is Clatsop County Commissioner Ann Samuelson thinks exactly like “Another Astorian”.

8 On Dec 30, 04:47 pm, Paranoid dillusional wrote:

No one gets out alive. Not even you Mcgoo. I think it would be far more spectacular to die in an lng explosion than cancer.

10 On Dec 31, 12:36 am, Bunny Von Munchausen wrote:

Come to think of it, you cant see or smell electricity, either. Maybe Clatsop County should ban electricity because of it’s fatal potential. I’d be curious to know the hard factual statistics comparing how many human fatalities occurred in the US and other developed nations due to domestic and industrial electricity usage compared to LNG or other forms of natural gas.

12 On Dec 31, 01:43 am, Californication wrote:

The screams perhaps seemed endless that night as parents, reporters, oil field workers and anyone who could help descended on the town of New London.

The explosion is considered the third deadliest tragedy in Texas history, ranking behind the Galveston hurricane of 1900 and the Texas City disaster. While no exact count may ever be determined, 298 students, teachers and others are believed to have died when manual training instructor Lemmie R. Butler turned on a sanding machine. He had no idea that the area was filled with a mixture of gas and air.
Odorless natural gas explosion

1994 Edison Natural Gas Explosion

14 On Dec 31, 11:09 pm, AnotherAstorian wrote:

March 18, 1937 Oh Californication….you are really pushing it here…

An accident from 80 years ago…give me a BREAK!

16 On Jan 1, 05:48 pm, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Obviously, some of you need to see this

http://www.ch-iv.com/pdfs/riley_debunk.pdf

I tried to post this as an article, but was unable to do so…please read, it sure opened MY eyes!

18 On Jan 1, 06:46 pm, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Oh give me a break Californication….read it..seriously! You might learn something!

20 On Jan 1, 08:47 pm, Patrick McGee wrote:

Haven’t we heard enough of the same B.S. from Northern Star – Calpine – Oregon LNG and those colluding with them?

It’s called, “Whose truth do you choose to believe?”.

Sparrows Point wasting all that effort on debunking Tim Riley?

That alone says enough.

Who around here really gives a crap about Sparrows Point or even knows where it is for that matter?

I am more interested in us, in this community, not making a way too wrong a decision on this issue before we have no choice.

“Read it, seriuosly! you might learn something?”

Yeah, you just might learn something, if you studied the LNG issue seriously.

22 On Jan 1, 09:36 pm, AnotherAstorian wrote:

Oh – sorry, meant to mention that it doesn’t matter WHERE the hell Sparrows Point is…the report is about the ridiculous fears about LNG and the facts surrounding them. Those facts pertain to LNG, not to the specific facility. For all I know, Sparrow’s Point never even got built, but I’m just glad that CH-IV Int’l put out this report…I felt that it put a bunch of “scary scenarios” to bed. Finally. Too bad it isn’t general knowledge, but you can bet everyone I know has a copy.

24 On Jan 1, 10:51 pm, AnotherAstorian wrote:

“Haven’t we heard enough of the same B.S. from Northern Star – Calpine – Oregon LNG and those colluding with them? It’s called, “Whose truth do you choose to believe?”. Sparrows Point wasting all that effort on debunking Tim Riley? That alone says enough. Who around here really gives a crap about Sparrows Point or even knows where it is for that matter? I am more interested in us, in this community, not making a way too wrong a decision on this issue before we have no choice. “Read it, seriuosly! you might learn something?”
Yeah, you just might learn something, if you studied the LNG issue

Oh Patrick you are an idiot (again)...This report was done based on science, not emotion! It’s facts dude!

26 On Mar 18, 03:26 pm, Ella wrote:

I’ve been looking thru the internet articles about LNG and see several that say if there is an explosion the fire could be a half mile in diameter. That scares the hell out of me because I work in Astoria within a half mile of the river. I don’t want to die in an explosion/fire. I also drive past a proposed terminal site twice a day, though fortunately it’s more than a half mile away from the highway. But the poor folks on Puget Island, Washington, would be toast if the proposed terminal at Bradwood Landing blew up, and most likely the town of Cathlamet would go bye bye too. Yet they get no say in whether that terminal is built because they’re in a different state. Of course, Oregonians don’t get any say either. It’s all up to five guys who work for FERC, our wonderful federal government, which looks out for our welfare and safety. And our wonderful county and state governments might be able to stop it if they would enforce the land-use planning laws that they freely use to control us ordinary folks. The good people at NorthernStar say LNG can’t blow up. I don’t know about that, but I do know that regular natural gas can blow up, and they have to turn it back into regular natural gas before it goes into the pipeline, so I have to believe that if there is a spill (and don’t try to tell me it can’t happen) it would flash into its normal form, a gas not a liquid, and if there happens to be an ignition source somewhere around, it would go kaboom. I don’t want to die from something like this that I have no control over just because some damn Texas energy company wants bigger profits, and because some damn county commissioners want the alleged tax revenue. Sorry, guess I’m just selfish that way.

28 On May 29, 06:15 pm, Johnnie Cargo wrote:

I find it interesting that so many people that have not been involved with actual LNG operations have such strong opinions and are often so misinformed on LNG. I have actually sailed on these LNG tankers for 25 years, broke a propellor on a fully loaded vessel and ran aground in Japan. Each time we discharged the cargo safely and efficiently. I have also seen how the environment in Japan has benefitted from the change-over to clean CH4 fuel. As in any operation involving the carriage of large volumes of energy, there are risks involved. Using state of the art ships and containment vessels, as well as the high degree of profesionalism, training and experience of the crews, atracted to the high salaries paid for this work, the industry can boast of over 50,000 cargoes delivered without a single major mishap involving the cargo and cryogenic systems on board as well as on the terminals. No other industry can claim that. The investment in the infrastructure of this industry is so high, for example, a modern LNG ship costs in excess of $220,000,000.00, that fly by night operators are excluded from this section of the maritime industry. The owners also want to protect their investment with the best crews that they can get.
As we in the US, East Coast as well as the West Coast hem and haw and consume all the empty rhetoric on the yeas and neas of LNG terminals, other countries such as China, India, Japan, Korea will tie up the available LNG supplies with long term contracts at favorable rates. By the time the American people and it’s government realizes that we need this clean fuel, there will only be expensive spot cargoes left. Now ask yourself, who will pay through the nose for the left-overs?